Do not post direct personal insults in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
I absolutely think that he acted in what he thought were the best interests of the nation. This is a clear case of hubris where someone prefers to act on his gut instinct for his beliefs in despite of every reasonable bit of factual information available. I’m sure that Fred Phelps believes that he is acting in the best interests of the nation in trying to purge the U.S. of homosexuality, but that does not preclude the probability that he is simply wrong and deluded. Bush is intellectually lazy, not stupid, but it causes him to do the same things that he would do if he were stupid. (There is an interesting parallel for Bush in regards to the death penalty in Texas. A great deal of information demonstrates that Texas has one of the weakest systems of defending people accused of capital crimes and has executed the largest number of innocent people. When Illinois, (with a much better record than Texas), suspended the death penalty because they found a systemic pattern of problems, Bush was asked about Texas and his was response was that Texas had no problems. He ALWAYS sees exactly what he WANTS to see.)
The NIE report was cooked by orders from the top to find Iraq “guilty” with the information pased through the OSP. The “PR firm” got its weight by having been established as an independent agency within the Department of Defense. It is simply false to claim that five agencies actually came to independent conclusions that Iraq had WMDs. They were told what to report. They were ordered to suppress conflicting testimony. The only information that was permitted to pass up the chain of command was information vetted by the OSP to favor the WMD claims.
No, that was when the law said you couldn’t use race as a factor in housing loans. No bank was told it had to make risky loans.
What promoted risky loans was deregulation under the Bush administration which allowed companies to offer unsound insurance on mortgages. Banks no longer had an incentive to assess risk because their loans were supposedly insured. The problem was that the minimally regulated insurers did not have the capital to pay off the policies. When the real estate market dipped and bad mortgages got dumped, the insurers were unable to pay off the policies they had written and went under, followed by the lenders who found they didn’t have the protection they thought they did.
But I guess this thread is answering the question “What would it take for George W. Bush to mend his reputation?”
The answer is “The ongoing rewriting of history by his successors.”
TomnDebb, I think you and I mostly agree on the points you made in pst 122. I’d add that W also tends to do what he thinks his constituents want, that that will color his opinion of what he thinks is the right course of action. After 9/11, the country wanted payback (beyond OEF). Probably the same thing with the death penalty, if what I’ve heard about Texans’ thoughts on that matter is true.
Without proper proof of an Iraqi threat, the president should have been man enough to say “No, this conquest you want is unreasonable and against our nation’s best interests.” President Bush was not man enough to say that.
:rolleyes: By that logic America should have attacked Canada in retaliation for 9-11; it’s closer and had just as much to do with 9-11 as Iraq did.
Along with vast strategic reserves of whale blubber and attitude.
**What would it take for George W. Bush to mend his reputation?
**
His reputation was besmirched from day one by a bunch of whiners who couldn’t stand the fact that he won the election in 2000. The shit-slinging started and never stopped, and as Goebbels said, tell a lie loud enough and long enough and soon people will believe it.
So, what would it take? Massive apologies by the left, including the media. And that ain’t gonna happen.
He could come out four-square behind Obama on the religious freedom issue as it relates to the New York Islamic cultural center. Seeing as how he personally endorsed one of the main men behind it as an Islamic moderate to be admired. Seeing as how he went to such great lengths to emphasize that we were not at war with Islam, and seeing as how that is one of our enemies greatest propaganda points, and standing against it would be a worthy and noble effort.
Crickets. Hear the crickets?
Actually he lost that election by a few million votes and won thanks to his brother, Katherine Harris, and an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling.
What was the name of that meme again about invoking Hitler in a thread?
Nonsense. He was handed the post of President by the Supreme Court. Just as he was handed everything else in his life. And just like everything else he ever did he was a disaster at it.
I read an interesting article about his time at Disney. He was too confused by films like the Black Cauldron, and wanted more films like National Lampoon’s vacation or something that “the average person can enjoy.” Thanks to him, Steve Guttenberg became the biggest star of the 80’s.
So, when we look at GWB’s entire life, you can say, “Well, at least he gave us Three Men and a Baby!”
Found it: Godwin’s Law.
Although it has a new nickname now: Reductio ad Hitlerum. I like that, it’s catchy.
Cynical answer : he could die.
Preferably by getting shot - martyrdom’s a surefire way to go out smelling like roses. But even just kicking a regular bucket would make people fall over themselves saying he wasn’t so bad after all.
It looks like its already happening:
Ohio voters prefer GWB over Obama 50-42.
If this is real, then this country is fucked.
Sigh.
To be fair, Bush has completely stayed out of the political fray. Admirably so. He has refused to criticize Obama even when baited to do so and in spite of repeated attacks on his record by Obama. He’s even gone so far as to time the release of his biography to be several days after the midterms, rather than release it now when it would no doubt be headline news for days and would sell much better.
For all his other failings, I think this shows a certain amount of class on his part.
Regretably, the alternative explanation is at least equally plausible.
Civility, propriety, dignity…all very well. But unless someone heads off this growing chancre, people are going to start dying. Perhaps if GeeDubya spoke out, it would not help much. But its hard to see how it could hurt.
Its possible, I suppose, that he is motivated by a sense of duty and civic virtue. In which case its a pity he came upon it so late.
You set an unfair and impossible bar to clear. Bush would have to admit that. He likely will not. But Rumsfield was part of the group sold the poison gas to Iraq . He knew Saddam had gas then, but he also knew it was well past its shelf life when he decided to start a war with them.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm Before you ask. Rumsfield helped make Saddam as powerful as he was. He has plenty of dirt and blood on his hands.